November 13th, 2010
By Barry Secrest
Guardians of Liberty: Part II
In our last offering, we took a look at the differences between a Democracy and a Republic along with the basic tenets of the Democratic versus the Republican Parties. The initial purpose being to understand what each of these connotes in the most modern and concise definitions available--being couched in the terms of where we find our country today. When we look at the extreme overreaching of our Government, over the last several years, many often wonder "how" exactly America got to this particular point?
Think about it. We have declared what amounted to anti-constitutional moratoriums against certain companies trying to perform the very thing that keeps them in business, we have had attack after attack by Democrat directed Government forces across a wide range of industries from Banking to Insurance to energy companies and numerous others scattered in between--even states, for Heaven's sake, to the point that we now have nearly half of all states suing the Federeal Government. We have even had a wide range of attacks against industry professionals themselves.
These attacks range from doctors and medical professionals to news and talk show anchormen, bankers and stockbrokers. We have even had attacks on the Media itself. While the "Wizards of Wall Street" may have deserved a generous portion of negative criticism, a large proportion of those financial professionals under attack did absolutely nothing wrong, but separation via the broad brush-stroke is a normally utilized tool to the professional "Community Organizer."
Transformers III: A Glimpse of the Future
The clincher, however, was the actual takeover and nationalization of a number of banks, Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac, the student loan program, and of course automobile manufacturers. When one stops and looks at how these takeovers occurred, the most common answer is "well the Government had to." Oh, really? Not necessarily. One of the major points, once again, of a Government's transformation from free-market Capitalism to Statism is, actually, the takeover by authorities of certain targeted key industries, often under the auspices of the "Greater Good."
Health Insurance Companies were initially targeted for a complete transformation to a single payer system; when that didn't work, Obama and the Democrats opted for the second best available alternative--that being--driving these companies out of business by setting up rules and regulations which would eventually snuff out the various companies' abilities to realize net operating increase over expenses. This is already happening to many carriers, as certain parts of the healthcare law are being set into motion, and they are even now dropping out of group health coverage.
When we look at where we are today as it regards healthcare, without a large number of changes being implemented, if not actually repealing healthcare altogether, these companies will, in effect, go out of business. This will leave the Government free to take over the entire system and then control medicine completely via the purse strings. Once this happens, you will see costs increase without any private forces available to reign them in via marketplace competitiveness itself. As these costs increase, the Government will then begin cutting reimbursements (which has already begun). As these reimbursements are slashed, a large number of providers will simply be unable to operate at required income levels, and you will then have many simply bailing out of the medical professions, be they doctors, special services or the myriad other such providers that exist today. In other words, that Urgent Care Center that you have down the street from your home will shut down--never mind your doctor's office.
Physician "Heel" Thyself
In fact, there are already a significant number of doctors who refuse to accept both Medicare and Medicaid simply because the costs of treating these patients is prohibitive and the Government pays when and what the Government decides to pay. While the Democrats and Obama might tell you that medical professionals are greedy and want too much, they invariably fail to tell you about the costs these doctors and others incur in malpractice insurance, education, and training, and the cost to acquire those personnel proficient enough to keep doctors from being sued down to their underpants. Which brings us to Tort Reform.
One thing that you will not find in the new Healthcare Law is any sort of "actual" Tort Reform. Tort Reform would, in large part, address the problems which physicians have in paying their often crippling insurance premiums. So what's the problem? Glad you asked. One of Obama's and the Democrats' greatest benefactors is the trial lawyers. It would go against the trial lawyers' impressive income streams to lessen jury awards; therefore, the lawyers' various pacs donate huge sums to the Democrats in order to maintain the status quo. So while you might hear both Obama and the Democrats giving impressive lip-service to how they care about the little man, their hands, and therefore their intent, remain in the pockets of the big men and so it has been for some time. Change we can believe in? Pish-posh.
Fear not, however, for the lawyer's time is at hand, as well. You see, once healthcare is completely nationalized in just a few years, the Statists will grow impatient at the havoc in Government costs that are caused by lawyers who will be, by that point, taking extreme advantage of a medical system which will be operating within a far lesser level of proficiency than previously because of the aforementioned ravages by Government--which will result in? You guessed it! Large jury awards due to sub-par diagnosis and treatment. The result will then be a rash of claims which will drive so many more providers out of business and increase Government costs to the point that severe action will be required in the form of mitigating torts.
Sorry! I Just Torted...
So how does one mitigate torts? Voila' --Tort Reform's time has now come. You see, once the takeover of the medical professions is completed, the Government will have hired a substantial number of medical personnel for themselves, and these personnel will be members of what Union? Bingo! The Service International Employees Union (SEIU). And who is the army which Obama and the Democrats have hired to perform their thuggery all over the star spangled plain? The SEIU.
The operative point here being SEIU members, at this point, will be required to donate lavishly to their Democratic Benefactors to a degree that the trial lawyers' money will eventually amount to less than a pittance in comparison.
At this particular juncture, many might begin to wonder how in the world did we get to this abominable point in America? Simple. The Daisy Chain of events outlined above contains all sorts of less distinctive but no less important variety of "Daisy Chains" fractily associated with it. But the signatory event which caused all of this mayhem was the election of our President, Barrack Hussein Obama, during a crisis that shook the foundation of this country down to its core. Out of America's rubble arose an individual who was not, as we can see now, what he appeared to be--at least as far as the Mainstream Media is concerned.
Out of the Sea Will Arise
The one thing that few still wish to talk about is simply the ideology of the man we now call our President. Politicians in power, the Mainstream Media, even certain Conservatives are often afraid to discuss in public discourse the beliefs and ideologies which have driven both Obama and the US economy into a morass of confused indications. This fear is most likely rooted within a hesitancy to stir up the ruling elites and the media. However, there are many others who have come out from day one and pointed to Obama's veiled history, noting that something was, indeed, amiss.
When we take a long hard look at the President and his blatantly ill-capitalistic agenda, it becomes necessary to listen carefully to the words that he utters and watch even more carefully his actions as the designated leader of the Free World. The puzzle that is Obama has more often than not been ensnared within a Mainstream Media's effort to mitigate his stumbling efforts at appearing to be something that he clearly is not, while emphasizing those odd moments in which the President seems to be espousing views that are more center-oriented. But the one thing that those concerned among us consistently seem to note is that "this guy does not like Americans very much when you get right down to it."
In a recent speech that the President gave, once again, catering to a specific racial group, while denigrating those who weren't immediately watching, the President called those individuals who think that amnesty is not such a grand idea as "our enemies." That would be, in large part, Mr. President, a majority of the population, Sir. So, Obama thinks that we normal Americans are enemies--at least the ones who are terribly concerned about our Country's plight and mostly disagree with his radical ideas. This doesn't really surprise most of us who have become hard-wired to the true media's reports of Obama's repeated attacks upon both us and America in general.
Righty Tighty Wing-Nuts Cry Thee
But the President did not end his diatribe there; Obama actually went on to state: "we will punish our enemies." At this point it becomes important to note that neither I, nor many of my Conservative Family, consider those of our Countrymen who are in opposition to our beliefs as enemies. Granted, we might view them sometimes as stupid, often imbecilic--but never enemies. Shall we now, Mr. President, follow your lead and begin characterizing all of those on the Left as our enemies? Most would never stoop to such a narrowly defined and nasty viewpoint, which is a recipe for mayhem. And yet Obama refuses to call the Iranian Regime, responsible for killing American soldiers and unsettling Iraq, our enemies.
In fact, we of the vocal throng are, indeed, disturbed that the President would actually broaden his attacks from just we Constitutionally oriented right wing-nuts to the normal Americans who simply wish to go about their lives without being worried by all of this mess. Those particular Americans and their freedom to espouse what is actually a non-political view, such as amnesty, are the ones we are trying to look after--it's as simple as that. So why does the President attack even those who might only occasionally detract from his opinions? The actual answer to this question is even more simple--while being more disturbing-than anything many could imagine.
The President's ideological leanings drift all the way back to his days of being a star pupil of left-wing radical Saul Alinsky's Community Organizing skill-set. Alinsky, who wrote the book Rules For Radicals, begins it with a near fawning appreciation of evil incarnate, literally in the form of a dedication to Lucifer himself. Alinsky actually wrote that Satan or Lucifer was the first of all radicals and won a Kingdom all his own by railing against the establishment. Not news Ladies and Gentleman.
Sourcing The Apprentice
But the question would be this, was this simply an allegory by Alinsky referring to the effectiveness of total mayhem to society, or was it something even worse? Was Alinsky referring to Satan as his own master and laying down the foundations noting where the Devil finds his most comfortable abode--that being hell on earth in this case. Why should the fact that Alinsky's Bible for mayhem's beginning as a herald to Satan himself be consistently overlooked, if not poo-poohed, by those of the intelligentsia?
Even better, whether the final goal is a supposedly redistributionist society of strict equality or total mayhem--in what place do we find the overall subtext of the Obama administration itself in our America of today? Please reread the first half of this article if still unsure. Many have disingenuously described Alinsky as a leader of the non-Socialist Left, and yet many others will describe Alinsky as a Communist Guru, and yet it has been our observation of history through the ages that the Leftward is never satisfied with a particular status quo, but rather requires ever more nourishment from its "supposed" master, the people, until such time as its unwitting realization of an all-powerful central Government becomes the Master and the people become the supplicant.
Even in the early days, Obama railed at the scenes he saw all around the inner-city of Chicago, where poverty, unemployment and inequality seemed rampant, never understanding that this was but one facet of poverty in American society. What Obama was actually seeing was a world where year upon year of slipshod Democratic management in Chicago had taken a severe toll. Resultantly, Chicago as with many other Metropolises, had spawned an underclass solely dependent upon a Government that had mangled the job of educating those in need of upwards and outward--actually downwards into a recombinant mess where even the hardiest of individuals would find escape velocity difficult at best. Ironically, the very thing that fed Obama's radical Leftward ideology was the very thing that actually caused the need for his social redistributive skills in the first place.
I'll Have One BLT On Wheat, Hold The Marxism
From his days as a Chicago Community Organizer, Obama,via the ultra-left Alinskey's techniques, learned a narrow vision of Blacks in America that persisted to the point of his joining the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's extraordinarily Liberal teachings of Black Liberation theology. A Religion which was originally inspired by Communists of the fifties seeking religiously contrived ways to both target and subvert third-world underclasses into a proletariat of Marxist origins. The penultimate goal of the time being to counter free-market capitalism Societies and turn them on themselves by way of "Humanistic Religions." The goals of Black Liberation Theology (BLT) in the modern world seem to be one of railing against whichever portion of the population seems to be in the majority at the time, and, of course, also to enrich and empower its ministers as with many self-serving Religions of today. One should never, ever forget that Obama frequently referred to Rev. Wright as his Mentor until he no longer could afford to.
It should also be noted that while the Rev. Wright rails at rich White people, damns America and praises Extremist Muslim Leaders, he invariably seems to leave out the product of his own brand of free-market Capitalism, that being living in a multi-million dollar gated abode, quite shamelessly, while preaching the ills of wealth and Capitalism. Sort of a Black Michael Moore, as it were. Obama, noting the problems associated by a vast majority of Americans with this mindset faithfully maintained that despite regular attendance to this Church of twenty years, he rarely heard any of the sermons which continually preached against the ideals that most Americans hold dear.
This not working very well, Obama then dutifully ejected Wright as his Mentor and rejected further visits to his church preferring Golf outings instead from what we can gather. But it was also during this 20 year period, that Obama culminated a number of radical friendships, the causitive one being ex-terrorist and now academain Bill Ayers. Ayers, was a member of the terrorist group weather underground which was a Communist group dedicated to, once again, all sorts of mayhem aimed at American values.
One Nation, Asunder God, With Poverty and Pestilence For All
But it was also during this time in Chicago that Obama honed his skills even further and connected with the Communist organizations who are one of Obama's most ardent supporters. The other part of this same equation must dutifully be the proclivity of Obama to seek out any number of Green solutions which, while originally rooted in true conservation of the planet, have over time become polluted by those of the Socialist-Marxist subset whose ultimate goal is to bring down free market Capitalism. Cap and Trade, Global warming and a large number of societal hot-buttons each are hinged on the door frame of Socialism or Globalism. One need only peruse through a number of the President's radical views as it regards coal, fossil fuels in general and the US Constitution itself to see that the world of Obama and the clueless Democrats is a world that will inevitably lead to equalized mass poverty and increasing Government Authoritarianism unless, once again, voter action is taken.
- When we look at Obama's Cabinet of advisers and czars of today, the silhouette of what many of us now think of as one of dark and foreboding points to, once again, his overall political acumen belonging starkly to a pattern cut out from an extreme left-leaning radicalism. Most of the lesser positions initially granted and even in place today, were manned by Marxists, Communists or Socialists who simply do not hold the same ideals as that of most liberty loving Americans.
- But when we look, for instance, at Obama's attacks on the Supreme Court, we can begin to see a lord-like mentality at play in one individual who has been given powers by the people that no single other individual within this Country can match. And yet, that apparently was not enough.
- When we look at a Department Of Justice who refuses now to enforce voter descrimination charges if leveled against minorities such as in the black panther case, Obama's attempts to foster a new dependent class--that being illegal aliens while using race as the fulcrum
- When we look at Congressman John Conyers who implored the group Democratic Socialists of America to stand behind, support and defend Obama, as the one man intent upon furthering their cause of one-world governance i.e. Globalism which is anathema to liberty
- When we see Obama addressing a group of black bloggers with a prescription of secrecy for attendees in an administration that was supposed to be based upon openness--never mind the ostracization of any other races.
It becomes plain to see a dark agenda at play that has thus far been rubber-stamped by a now considered witless Congress that the people will look to unseat. The one thing to bear in mind after seeing an America under reconstruction is simply this:
Within a Society both designed and based upon a Constitutional rule of law, the individual who could usurp such a Society and transform it into another type of Society would need to be steeped in counter-capitalism and trained in Societal transformation to a powerful degree.
That individual would also need be expert on both the US Constitution and the laws of the land and completely committed to the goal of redistributing away that which does not belong in their new world order.
George Soros, the billionaire individual who likens himself to a God, visited the White House at least four times last year. His stated intent is to bring down the US by devaluing its currency.
November 13th, 2010
Cindy McCain has apparently sharply reversed course on her position on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the span of just several days. Having blasted the policy that bars gays from openly serving in the military on Wednesday, the wife of Senator McCain now says she supports her husband's stance on the issue.
On November 10, Cindy McCain appeared in an ad for the NOH8 campaign, an organization formed as a response to California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state. In the video, McCain says that "our political and religious leaders tell LGBT youth that they have no future." Later, she adds that "they can't serve our country openly."
On Friday, however, Cindy McCain clarified her stance, tweeting that she supports her husband's position on DADT. "I fully support the NOH8 campaign and all it stands for and am proud to be a part of it. But I stand by my husband's stance on DADT."
In February, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended getting rid of DADT, but McCain has not adhered to his prior position. Less than one month ago he vowed to filibuster any attempt to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
The Washington Post reported on Thursday that an extensive Pentagon study finds there is minimal risk in allowing gays to serve openly.
Here is the tweet:
I fully support the NOH8 campaign and all it stands for and am proud to be a part of it. But I stand by my husband's stance on DADT.
November 13th, 2010
(CNN) -- While winter's start remains more than a month away, much of Minnesota and Wisconsin were under a winter storm warning Saturday, with some areas seeing almost a foot of snow.
As early as 10:30 a.m., 11 inches of snow had fallen in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, the National Weather Service reported.
Other Minnesota communities had seen 10 inches by midday, including New Hope, Amboy, Mankato and Montgomery, while parts
of Minneapolis were blanketed by at least nine inches of snow.
In some areas, an inch of snow was falling an hour.
"Even though we get this every single year, for whatever reason, the first snow of the year appears to make everyone forget how to drive in snow," Drew Gordon, of Eagan, Minnesota, told CNN Radio. "So it's always a huge, huge mess."
Shortly after 5 p.m., the Minnesota State Patrol reported on its Twitter page that officers had responded to at least 401 crashes on Saturday, 45 of them with injuries. The agency warned drivers that conditions could worsen in the evening, as roads turned icy.
The storm also affected air travel, with dozens of flights to and from Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport delayed or canceled.
The snow was accompanied by sustained winds blowing as high as 25 mph. The National Weather Service's warning extends through noon Sunday, with just under a foot of snow predicted in the heaviest hit areas, including Minneapolis and St. Paul.
The storm's weekend timing muted its impact on traffic and the economy. Still, as the first big snow since last spring, it managed to jolt even Minnesota residents familiar with wintry weather.
"The reality hits when you need to dig out the shovels, and the snowsuits and the boots," said Lisa Saline of Bloomington told CNN Radio. "I'm glad I don't have kids in strollers anymore, and I can hand them a shovel and have them go do the driveway."
The snow was forecast to continue into Sunday, and more might come before long, according to the National Weather Service. Temperatures were forecast to be below freezing much of next week, with a 30 percent chance of additional snow on Tuesday.
Minnesota and Wisconsin aren't the only U.S. locales experiencing wintry weather in mid-November.
"Near blizzard conditions" are forecast for Wyoming and parts of western Nebraska starting as early as Monday night, with persistent snow combining with sustained winds as high as 45 mph and gusts up to 60 mph. While the National Weather Service is predicting a break Thursday, another winter storm could barrel through that region next weekend.
Other CNN News:
November 13th, 2010
The new head of Britain's armed forces, Gen Sir David Richards, has warned that the West cannot defeat al-Qaeda and militant Islam.
He said defeating Islamist militancy was "unnecessary and would never be achieved".
However, he argued that it could be "contained" to allow Britons to lead secure lives.
Gen Richards, 58, said the threat posed by "al-Qaeda and its affiliates" meant Britain's national security would be at risk for at least 30 years.
The general, who will tomorrow lay a wreath at the Cenotaph in Whitehall in memory of Britain's war dead, said the West's war against what he described as a "pernicious ideology" had parallels with the fight against Nazi Germany in the Second World War.
In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, the general disclosed that Prince William was unlikely to serve in Afghanistan but suggested that his brother Harry, training to be an Apache helicopter pilot, could return to front-line duty in Helmand province.
He said the British military and the Government had been "guilty of not fully understanding what was at stake" in Afghanistan and admitted that the Afghan people were beginning to "tire" of Nato's inability to deliver on its promises.
However, he said the sacrifice being made by the Armed Forces in Afghanistan, where 343 soldiers have been killed since 2001, "has been worth it". Progress was being made and Nato was "in the right parish". He said: "Don't give up folks, it's all to play for."
The general also dismissed suggestions that troops badly injured fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan would ever be "forced" to leave the Armed Forces, but said most of those seriously wounded wanted to leave to begin new careers.
He rejected claims by former senior Royal Navy chiefs who said scrapping the aircraft carrier Ark Royal and the Harrier force would jeopardise the security of the Falkland Islands. But it is the general's assertion that victory against militant Islam cannot be achieved that is likely to prove most contentious.
The general said: "In conventional war, defeat and victory is very clear cut and is symbolised by troops marching into another nation's capital. First of all you have to ask: do we need to defeat it [Islamist militancy] in the sense of a clear cut victory? I would argue that it is unnecessary and would never be achieved.
"But can we contain it to the point that our lives and our children's lives are led securely? I think we can."
He also said the real weapon in the war against al-Qaeda was the use of "upstream prevention" as well as "education and democracy". The problems that gave rise to militant Islamism were unlikely to be solved soon, he added.
On the issue of future wars, the general said he could see no case for military intervention in other countries "at the moment" but added that he would be "barmy to say that one day we wouldn't be back in that position".
November 13th, 2010
WASHINGTON – Near the midpoint of his presidency, Barack Obama's diverse voter coalition reveals giant cracks and he faces major work repairing his standing among independents in states crucial to his re-election chances. Catholics. Older people. Women. Young adults. They shifted toward Republicans in this month's elections and failed to support Obama's Democratic Party as they did in 2008.
Two years before voters render judgment on his tenure, Obama's most critical task may be winning back those who aren't affiliated with a party but who hold enormous sway in close contests. National exit polls from the midterm elections show these voters broke heavily for Republicans after helping elect Obama and Democrats in the two previous elections.
The trouble with this constituency appears even deeper for Obama in places expected to be closely contested in the next White House race, according to an analysis by The Associated Press of exit polls in 26 states. It shows just how much ground Obama must make up with independents between now and November 2012.
"Over the last two years, we've made progress. But clearly too many Americans haven't felt that progress yet," the president said after the election. "As president, I take responsibility for that."
It's impossible to predict a presidential election based on midterm results. That's even truer considering that 131.2 million people voted in 2008, when Obama was elected, compared with 87 million this month, based on an AP tally of official and unofficial results. The slow-moving economic recovery could speed up, lifting Obama and the Democrats.
November's exit-poll responses provide enough hints that Obama could be in serious trouble if he doesn't shore up his support in crucial areas.
"I'm not going to lie to you, I'm frustrated and I blamed him for some of the bad shape this country's in. We're struggling," said Earlene Durham, 32, of St. Louis, sounding like other independents who backed Obama in 2008. "But then I thought, 'Well, he's trying the best he can.' The only thing we can do is wait and see what he does in the next two years. Gotta give the man a chance."
Exit-poll questionnaires vary state to state, but on several issues that dominated the campaign this year, cross-state analyses are possible.
His job performance rating was more negative than positive among voters in states such as Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Obama won them all in 2008. In Indiana, where Obama was the first Democrat to win the state since 1964, just 37 percent approved.
_More said their vote in a Senate race was to express opposition to Obama rather than to show support. This was true in every state where exit polls asked the question, and by margins of 2-to-1 or better in states such as Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
_Majorities disapprove of Obama in all states but California, Delaware, Hawaii and Vermont, which traditionally lean Democratic during a presidential election. Obama's job performance rating is lowest in West Virginia, where 76 percent disapprove. In Indiana, 69 percent of independents disapprove, and in perennially contested Ohio, 65 percent disapprove.
_Most express broad dissatisfaction with how the federal government is working. Roughly four in 10 are angry in Colorado and Missouri, while about one-third feel that way in Indiana, Ohio, Washington state, New Hampshire, Nevada, Wisconsin, Florida and Pennsylvania.
_A chunk said they want the government to do less after two years of Democratic domination in the nation's capital. That's almost a direct reversal of how this voting group behaved in 2008. Majorities of independents in each state surveyed except Democratic-leaning Hawaii said the government is doing too many things better left to the private sector and individuals.
_Supporters outnumber opponents of the tea party coalition in all but Delaware, Hawaii and Vermont. In Missouri, half of independents call themselves tea party backers, compared with 18 percent who oppose it. Nearly half of independents support the movement in 2008 swing states Colorado, Indiana and Ohio.
_More than half say their financial situations got worse in the past two years in Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin. One in seven or less across the states said their financial fortunes have improved during Obama's time in office.
_About four in 10 in six states — Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas — said the $814 billion economic stimulus package hurt the economy. At least half want the health care bill repealed in 20 of 24 states where the question was asked. The exceptions were California, Delaware, Hawaii and Vermont.
"I'm very disappointed," said independent Kris Rickert, 36, of Dousman, Wis., pointing to the skyrocketing national debt. "I understand his philosophy was trying to get the economy going, but I just don't think that's the right way of going about it."
After the election, Obama acknowledged that he's "paying a political price" for failing to make good on his promises to change the way Washington works and slipping in his pledge to "maintain the kind of tone that says we can disagree without being disagreeable."
Over the next two years, a divided government — with Republicans in control of the House and Democrats with a slim majority in the Senate — may give Obama more of an opportunity to shift his policies to the center and again woo independents, by compromising with the GOP. Yet, there's no certainty that will happen; both Obama and House Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner, R-Ohio, have suggested they're willing to compromise but only to a point.
Still, making an effort to change the ways of Washington could score him points with some independents.
"He is a progressive president, but he just doesn't have the chance to put his policies into effect because of the old ways that government works," said Sheree Sifferath, 67, an independent from Gold Canyon, Ariz.
She backed Obama in 2008 but voted for Republican John McCain for the Senate and GOP Rep. Jeff Flake in the midterm elections. She's open to supporting Obama in two years but hopes that he and Republicans can figure out a way to compromise.
"They can make it better if they just work together. They've got to change with the times," she added.
Research Coordinator Cliff Maceda with AP Election Research contributed to this report.